Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 09 June, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection regarding claim 7 previously set forth has been overcome in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09 June, 2026 regarding 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections previously set forth have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s argument filed 09 June, 2026 regarding 35 USC 101 rejection previously set forth has been fully considered but is not fully persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument:
“I. The Examiner's Characterization of the Claims as a "Mental Process" is Incorrect
The Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's conclusion that the claims recite a mental process is based on an oversimplification of the claim language and an improper dissection of the claims into isolated fragments. The Examiner asserts that the claims merely involve "selecting certain information and analyzing it" and, as such, "can be practically performed in the human mind." This characterization does not reflect the actual technological operations recited in the claims. The claims require detecting errors in navigation measurements, navigation solutions, and/or navigation data using trusted navigation measurements derived from external signal sources. These measurements may include measurements like Doppler, pseudorange, range, and time-of-arrival measurements, which are inherently the product of radio-frequency (RF) signal processing, satellite-to-receiver timing relationships, as well as multi-path and spoofing susceptibility analysis. These operations cannot be performed mentally, even with the aid of pen and paper, for example, because they require specialized hardware that is capable of receiving, demodulating, and processing satellite and terrestrial navigation signals in real time. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims involving sensor fusion, signal processing, or navigation integrity are not mental processes. In Thales Visionix v. United States, the court held that claims directed to improving inertial tracking accuracy were patent-eligible because they recited a specific technological improvement. The present claims similarly recite a concrete improvement to navigation device integrity as well as a resilience against spoofing and measurement degradation. The Examiner's attempt to reduce these operations to mental steps is inconsistent with both the claim language and the controlling precedent.”
“II. The Claims are Directed to a Specific Technological Improvement, not to an Abstract Idea
The Applicant further submits that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of navigation devices, not to an abstract idea. The Examiner's analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 fails to consider the claims as a whole, and instead isolates the concept of "detecting errors" as if it were the entirety of the invention. When properly viewed in context, the claims recite a specific architecture for improving navigation integrity by cross-validating untrusted navigation measurements against trusted navigation measurements derived from different signal sources or constellations. The claims further recite the use of validated and unvalidated measurements, multi-constellation GNSS comparisons, clock-domain consistency analysis, and detection of spoofable subspaces. These features collectively provide a technical solution to a technical problem, which is the vulnerability of navigation systems to spoofing, multipath interference, and measurement degradation. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have both consistently held that claims directed to improving the functioning of a technological system are patent-eligible. In Enfish v. Microsoft, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a self-referential database table were patent-eligible because they improved computer functionality. In McRO v. Bandai, claims directed to improved animation techniques were patent-eligible because they recited a specific technological improvement. The present claims similarly recite a specific improvement to navigation device integrity, and, as such, fall within the category of patent-eligible subject matter.”
“III. The Claims are Integrated into a Practical Application Under Step 2A, Prong 2
The Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's conclusion that the claims are not integrated into a practical application is incorrect. The Examiner asserts that the navigation device is a "generic device" and that the use of trusted navigation measurements is an "insignificant extra-solution activity." This conclusion is inconsistent with the claim language and the specification. The navigation device recited in the claims is not a generic computer because it is a specialized system that is configured to receive and process real-time navigation signals, for example received from satellites, aircraft, UAVs, pseudo-satellites, balloons, and terrestrial cellular towers. The navigation device may perform constellation-specific validation, cross-checks measurements across different signal sources, and analyze clock-domain consistency to detect spoofing or measurement degradation. These operations are not ancillary or extra-solution activities. The claims do not merely "apply" an abstract idea on a generic device, but rather the claims recite a specific configuration of hardware and processing steps that improve the reliability and integrity of navigation systems. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, claims that apply a judicial exception in a manner that improves a technological system are integrated into a practical application. As such, the present claims clearly meet this standard.”
“IV. The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept Under Step 2B
The Applicant further submits that the Examiner's Step 2B analysis is flawed because it fails to identify any evidence that the additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner asserts that the navigation device and trusted navigation measurements are generic and, therefore, cannot supply an inventive concept. This conclusion is unsupported by the record. The inventive concept in the claims lies in the architecture and/or methodology for using trusted navigation measurements to detect errors in untrusted measurements, including, for example, the use of multi-constellation cross-validation, clock-domain consistency checks, and spoofable subspace identification. These techniques are not conventional. The Examiner cites no evidence, as required under Berkheimer v. HP, that such techniques were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that factual determinations regarding conventionality must be supported by evidence. The Office Action contains no such evidence. Instead, the Office Action relies on conclusory statements that the navigation device is "generic" and that the operations are "routine," without citing any reference or factual basis. Since the Examiner has not met the evidentiary burden as required under Berkheimer, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections cannot be sustained.”
“V. The Claims are Analogous to Claims that were Found to be Patent-Eligible in Thales, CardioNet, and Other Federal Circuit Decisions
The Applicant also notes that the present claims are closely analogous to claims found to be patent-eligible by the Federal Circuit in several key decisions. In Thales TiSiOnix, the court held that claims directed to improving inertial tracking accuracy were patent-eligible because they recited a specific configuration of sensors and a specific method of using those sensors to improve tracking performance. The present claims similarly recite a specific configuration of navigation measurement sources and a specific method of cross-validating those measurements to improve navigation integrity. In CardioNet v. InfoBionic, the court held that claims directed to detecting atrial fibrillation using improved signal processing techniques were patent-eligible because they improved the functioning of a cardiac monitoring device. The present claims similarly improve the functioning of a navigation device, for example by enabling it to detect spoofing and measurement degradation. These cases demonstrate that claims directed to improving the accuracy, reliability, and/or integrity of a technological system are patent-eligible. As such, the present claims fall within this category.”
Examiner’s response:
With respect to Applicant’s argument I that the characterization of the claims as a "mental process" is incorrect, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
With respect to Applicant’s argument II that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claims recite that the navigation device is specialized or that the signals are being received or processed in real-time. The claims merely are directed to detecting errors and describing the type of data that the errors are being based on. Unlike the claims in Enfish v. Microsoft and McRO v. Bandai whose inventions as claimed recited the specific technical improvement for the technical problem they were trying to solve, the claims as recited are merely generic detecting steps.
Similarly, with respect to Applicant’s argument III that the claims are integrated into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nothing in the claims recite that the navigation device is specialized or that the signals are being received or processed in real-time. The claims merely are directed to detecting errors and describing the type of data that the errors are being based on. Furthermore, paragraph [0092] of the Specification explains that the navigation device is a general purpose processor, “Processor 610 can include any general purpose processor and a hardware service or software service, such as services 632, 634, and 636 stored in storage device 630, configured to control processor 610.”
With respect to Applicant’s argument IV that the claims recite an inventive concept, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Furthermore, the Examiner indicated that the additional limitations “navigation device” and “wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements” are recited at a high level of generality and ordinarily operated in the relevant field. Therefore, the Examiner found that the failure to recite any specifics of an inventive concept renders the claim ineligible.
With respect to Applicant’s argument V that the claims are analogous to claims that were found to be patent-eligible in Thales, CardioNet, and other Federal Circuit decisions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely are directed to detecting errors and describing the type of data that the errors are being based on. As claimed, the limitations do not recite the specific technical improvement for the technical problem. The claims as recited are merely generic detecting steps.
For the above-stated reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
However, as the Examiner has changed parts of claim analysis under 35 USC 101, this action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims are directed to a method and a system and recite judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claims 1 and 32:
Claim 1:
A method for a navigation device, the method comprising: detecting, by the navigation device, errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements.
Claim 32:
A system for navigation, the system comprising: a navigation device configured to detect errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 32 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claims are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim 32 will not be evaluated separately because the claim contains the same defects as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“detecting, by the navigation device, errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., detecting errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the use of at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process).
Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation of “a navigation device” is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The additional limitation of “the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of navigation. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the component does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitations represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1.
The additional limitation of “a navigation device” is at a high level of generality, and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more.
Similarly, the use of the “the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements” is at a high level of generality, and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case specifies what information to gather and analyze.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The additional limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 32 are ineligible.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of Doppler measurements, pseudorange measurements, range measurements, or time of arrival (TOA) measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3/ Claim 33:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 3 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 33 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 33 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 3 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 3 and 33 are ineligible.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein at least one of the unvalidated navigation measurements or the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from at least one of one or more satellites, one or more aircraft, one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one or more pseudo-satellites, one or more aerial balloons, or one or more terrestrial cellular towers.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of navigation. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a first constellation of satellites, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a second constellation of satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of navigation. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites and the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are within communication range of the navigation device at a same time.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of navigation. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites are one of geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, or low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and wherein the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are one of GEO satellites, MEO satellites, or LEO satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment of navigation. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites within a same constellation of satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9/ Claim 34:
The method of claim 3, further comprising detecting, by the navigation device, the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 9 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 34 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 34 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 9 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 9 and 34 are ineligible.
Claim 10/ Claim 35:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 10 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 35 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 35 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 10 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 10 and 35 are ineligible.
Claim 11/ Claim 36:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 36 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 36 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 11 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 11 and 36 are ineligible.
Claim 12/ Claim 37:
The method of claim 9, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 37 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 37 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 12 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 12 and 37 ineligible.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are fully determined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, further comprising determining, by the navigation device, timing of the first clock based on the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 3, wherein the validated navigation measurements are fully determined validated navigation measurements with a high dilution of precision (DOP).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18:
The method of claim 17, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are underdetermined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20:
The method of claim 19, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 20 is ineligible.
Claim 21:
The method of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and a second portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 21 is ineligible.
Claim 22:
The method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known relative stability of the first clock and the second clock relative to each other.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23:
The method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known receiver acceleration based on a motion sensor.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise local navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 24 is ineligible.
Claim 25:
The method of claim 24, wherein the local navigation measurements comprise at least one of inertial measurements or barometric pressure measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation solutions or validated navigation solutions.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 26 is ineligible.
Claim 27:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of position, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 27 is ineligible.
Claim 28:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of unvalidated navigation data or validated navigation data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 28 is ineligible.
Claim 29:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of satellite ephemeris data, satellite orbit data, or satellite clock data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 29 is ineligible.
Claim 30:
The method of claim 1, wherein the errors indicate a spoofable subspace.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 30 is ineligible.
Claim 31:
The method of claim 30, wherein the spoofable subspace is one of a line or a surface.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitations are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 31 is ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-31, and 33-37 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 26-29, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broumandan et al. (US 2023/0142516 A1 “BROUMANDAN”).
Regarding claim 1, BROUMANDAN discloses a method for a navigation device, the method comprising: detecting, by the navigation device, errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements (the difference between the residuals of the authenticating pseudorandom noise (PRNs) (Group B) and the mean residuals of the authenticated PRNs (Group A) is compared with a predefined threshold in step 755. If the difference is not greater than the threshold, the procedure moves to step 765 and determines that PRN i of Group B is classified as authentic. Otherwise, the procedure moves to step 760 and determines that PRN i of Group B is classified as spoofed [0066]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data” is in alternative form, and not all alternatives are required of the claimed invention. In this case, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN. It is further noted that the feature “validated navigation measurement” is understood to be a source verified to be true, which corresponds to “the authenticated PRNs (Group A)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN.
Regarding claim 3, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements (the authenticating pseudorandom noise (PRNs) (Group B) [0066], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements” is in alternative form, and not all alternatives are required of the claimed invention. In this case, the claimed alternative “unvalidated navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN.
Regarding claim 4, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3, wherein at least one of the unvalidated navigation measurements or the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from at least one of one or more satellites, one or more aircraft, one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one or more pseudo-satellites, one or more aerial balloons, or one or more terrestrial cellular towers (a typical NSS receiver receives a composite signal consisting of several signals 145 transmitted by the satellites, as well as any noise and interfering signals, such as spoofing signal 160, described further below. A receiver may recover one of the transmitted signals 145 by correlating the composite received signal with a locally generated reference version of the PRN code signal assigned to the particular satellite of interest [0020]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of the unvalidated navigation measurements or the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from at least one of one or more satellites, one or more aircraft, one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one or more pseudo-satellites, one or more aerial balloons, or one or more terrestrial cellular towers” is in alternative form, and not all alternatives are required of the claimed invention. In this case, the claimed alternative “one or more satellites” corresponds to “the satellites” as disclosed by BROUMANDAN.
Regarding claim 8, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites within a same constellation of satellites (the authenticating pseudorandom noise (PRNs) (Group B) [0066], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 26, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation solutions or validated navigation solutions. Examiner’s note: The limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN and detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 26 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation solutions”.
Regarding claim 27, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of position, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device. Examiner’s note: The limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN and detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 27 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation solutions”.
Regarding claim 28, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of unvalidated navigation data or validated navigation data. Examiner’s note: The limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN and detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 28 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation data”.
Regarding claim 29, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of satellite ephemeris data, satellite orbit data, or satellite clock data. Examiner’s note: The limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN and detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 29 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation data”.
Regarding claim 32, BROUMANDAN discloses a system for navigation, the system comprising: a navigation device configured to detect errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise validated navigation measurements (the difference between the residuals of the authenticating pseudorandom noise (PRNs) (Group B) and the mean residuals of the authenticated PRNs (Group A) is compared with a predefined threshold in step 755. If the difference is not greater than the threshold, the procedure moves to step 765 and determines that PRN i of Group B is classified as authentic. Otherwise, the procedure moves to step 760 and determines that PRN i of Group B is classified as spoofed [0066]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data” is in alternative form, and not all alternatives are required of the claimed invention. In this case, the claimed alternative “navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN. It is further noted that the feature “validated navigation measurement” is understood to be a source verified to be true, which corresponds to “the authenticated PRNs (Group A)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN.
Regarding claim 33, BROUMANDAN discloses the system of claim 32, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements (the authenticating pseudorandom noise (PRNs) (Group B) [0066], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 32). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements” is in alternative form, and not all alternatives are required of the claimed invention. In this case, the claimed alternative “unvalidated navigation measurements” corresponds to “the authenticating PRNs (Group B)” as disclosed in BROUMANDAN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Kreichauf et al. (US 2024/0027628 A1 “KREICHAUF”).
Regarding claim 2, BROUMANDAN discloses (Examiner’s note: What BROUMANDAN does not disclose is ) the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KREICHAUF teaches that the Kalman filter 114 is configured to receive GNSS measurements from GNSS receiver 120, including line-of-sight pseudo-range and delta-range data, as well as satellite clock information [0013]. The detection monitors use the residual and chi square values produced by the Kalman filter for all valid pseudo-range and delta-range measurements to determine if the discriminator Dcomp is unexpectedly high due to spoofing [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of KREICHAUF, because doing so would aid in detecting and minimizing impact of the spoofing, as recognized by KREICHAUF.
Claim(s) 5-7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of O’Connor et al. (US 2022/0386126 A1 “O’CONNOR”).
Regarding claim 5, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a first constellation of satellites (a typical NSS receiver receives a composite signal consisting of several signals 145 transmitted by the satellites, as well as any noise and interfering signals, such as spoofing signal 160, described further below. A receiver may recover one of the transmitted signals 145 by correlating the composite received signal with a locally generated reference version of the PRN code signal assigned to the particular satellite of interest [0020]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, O’CONNOR teaches validation of PNT signals from a transmitter 16, such as from a transmitter of a LEO satellite. Data in a message or messages from the transmitter 16 is used to validate a source of the message or messages and/or authenticate content of the message or messages [0075]. Furthermore, O’CONNOR teaches that the satellites are LEO, geosynchronous (GSO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), other satellites or combinations thereof [0032]. One satellite constellation is used, but multiple satellite constellations may be used [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of O’CONNOR, because doing so would strengthen integrity and reliability of the spoofing check/ detection, as recognized by O’CONNOR.
Regarding claim 6, BROUMANDAN/ O’CONNOR discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites and the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are within communication range of the navigation device at a same time (one satellite constellation is used, but multiple satellite constellations may be used [O’CONNOR 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, BROUMANDAN/ O’CONNOR discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites are one of geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, or low earth orbit (LEO) satellites (a plurality of NSS systems are currently in operation, e.g., GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo [BROUMANDAN 0019]), and wherein the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are one of GEO satellites, MEO satellites, or LEO satellites (the satellites are LEO, geosynchronous (GSO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), other satellites or combinations thereof [O’CONNOR 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 17,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, O’CONNOR teaches that the RF transmitters 16 transmit the messages in order. Using synchronized clocks of the RF transmitters 16, the messages are transmitted from the different RF transmitters 16 with the same or similar timing. In LEO, multiple radio beams on each satellite (e.g., 3168 beams across 66 satellites) transmit messages. Bursts of radio signals containing PNT data are synchronized with each other on regular frames [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of O’CONNOR, because doing so would improve system reliability and accuracy of detection, as recognized by O’CONNOR.
Claim(s) 9-12, and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Farley (US 9,903,954 B1 “FARLEY”).
Regarding claim 9, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3,
BROUMANDAN further discloses that the receiver 105 receives NSS signals 145 at antennas 110 and utilizes well-known techniques to calculate various navigation information including, e.g., position, velocity, etc. [0022]. However, BROUMANDAN does not explicitly disclose detecting, by the navigation device, the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device. In a same or similar field of endeavor, FARLEY teaches that the processor 320 can determine a first location of the pseudolite 300 using pseudolite navigation data from trusted reference pseudolites or trusted self-navigating pseudolites, determine a second location of the pseudolite 300 using satellite navigation data, and compare the determined first and second locations. If there is a discrepancy (e.g., beyond a given threshold) between the determined first and second locations, the processor 320 can flag the received satellite navigation data as unreliable, for instance [col. 11, lines 16-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of FARLEY, because doing so would maintain reliability of the navigation system while being able to process additional navigation information, as recognized by FARLEY.
Regarding claim 10, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device (the processor 320 can determine a first location of the pseudolite 300 using pseudolite navigation data from trusted reference pseudolites or trusted self-navigating pseudolites, determine a second location of the pseudolite 300 using satellite navigation data, and compare the determined first and second locations [FARLEY col. 11, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements (an authenticity verification weighting vector is defined as w A=[w 1 ,w 2 , . . . ,w N] where N is the number of all tracked PRNs including PRNs in Group A and B and wj takes a value between 0 and 1. In one exemplary embodiment, wj for the PRNs in Group A take 1 and wj for the PRNs in Group B may take a value between 0 and 1 [BROUMANDAN 0057]); (using this weighting, the PRNs in Group B are significantly de-weighted and have little or no effect on the position estimate [BROUMANDAN 0058]).
Regarding claim 12, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements (an authenticity verification weighting vector is defined as w A=[w 1 ,w 2 , . . . ,w N] where N is the number of all tracked PRNs including PRNs in Group A and B and wj takes a value between 0 and 1. In one exemplary embodiment, wj for the PRNs in Group A take 1 and wj for the PRNs in Group B may take a value between 0 and 1 [BROUMANDAN 0057]); (using this weighting, the PRNs in Group B are significantly de-weighted and have little or no effect on the position estimate [BROUMANDAN 0058]).
Regarding claim 34, BROUMANDAN discloses the system of claim 33,
BROUMANDAN further discloses that the receiver 105 receives NSS signals 145 at antennas 110 and utilizes well-known techniques to calculate various navigation information including, e.g., position, velocity, etc. [0022]. However, BROUMANDAN does not explicitly disclose that wherein the navigation device is further configured to detect the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device. In a same or similar field of endeavor, FARLEY teaches that the processor 320 can determine a first location of the pseudolite 300 using pseudolite navigation data from trusted reference pseudolites or trusted self-navigating pseudolites, determine a second location of the pseudolite 300 using satellite navigation data, and compare the determined first and second locations. If there is a discrepancy (e.g., beyond a given threshold) between the determined first and second locations, the processor 320 can flag the received satellite navigation data as unreliable, for instance [col. 11, lines 16-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of FARLEY, because doing so would maintain reliability of the navigation system while being able to process additional navigation information, as recognized by FARLEY.
Regarding claim 35, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device (the processor 320 can determine a first location of the pseudolite 300 using pseudolite navigation data from trusted reference pseudolites or trusted self-navigating pseudolites, determine a second location of the pseudolite 300 using satellite navigation data, and compare the determined first and second locations [FARLEY col. 11, lines 16-24], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 35).
Regarding claim 36, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements (an authenticity verification weighting vector is defined as w A=[w 1 ,w 2 , . . . ,w N] where N is the number of all tracked PRNs including PRNs in Group A and B and wj takes a value between 0 and 1. In one exemplary embodiment, wj for the PRNs in Group A take 1 and wj for the PRNs in Group B may take a value between 0 and 1 [BROUMANDAN 0057]); (using this weighting, the PRNs in Group B are significantly de-weighted and have little or no effect on the position estimate [BROUMANDAN 0058]).
Regarding claim 37, BROUMANDAN/ FARLEY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements (an authenticity verification weighting vector is defined as w A=[w 1 ,w 2 , . . . ,w N] where N is the number of all tracked PRNs including PRNs in Group A and B and wj takes a value between 0 and 1. In one exemplary embodiment, wj for the PRNs in Group A take 1 and wj for the PRNs in Group B may take a value between 0 and 1 [BROUMANDAN 0057]); (using this weighting, the PRNs in Group B are significantly de-weighted and have little or no effect on the position estimate [BROUMANDAN 0058]).
Claim(s) 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Sheikh (US 2009/0018762 A1 “SHEIKH”).
Regarding claim 13, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHEIKH teaches that system errors may be determined. However, adding capabilities to estimate errors also increases the number of unknowns [0140]. This system has k equations and k+3 unknowns, which is an under-determined system. At least three unknowns must be estimated prior to attempting to solve this equation. Any prior knowledge that allows an estimate of enough unknowns to reduce the system to be fully-determined may be utilized and the availability and type of such varies by application [0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of SHEIKH, because doing so would aid in the determining of adequate navigation accuracy, as recognized by SHEIKH.
Regarding claim 17, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHEIKH teaches that system errors may be determined. However, adding capabilities to estimate errors also increases the number of unknowns [0140]. This system has k equations and k+3 unknowns, which is an under-determined system. At least three unknowns must be estimated prior to attempting to solve this equation. Any prior knowledge that allows an estimate of enough unknowns to reduce the system to be fully-determined may be utilized and the availability and type of such varies by application [0141]. The measured GDOP provides a description of how well the set of chosen pulsars will compute an accurate three-dimensional position. If pulsars are chosen from only one portion of the sky, the measurement matrix will skew the observations towards this direction and will not produce a good three-dimensional solution. Lower values of GDOP indicate more favorable pulsar distribution [0178].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of SHEIKH, because doing so would aid in the determining of adequate navigation accuracy, as recognized by SHEIKH.
Regarding claim 19, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHEIKH teaches that system errors may be determined. However, adding capabilities to estimate errors also increases the number of unknowns [0140]. This system has k equations and k+3 unknowns, which is an under-determined system. At least three unknowns must be estimated prior to attempting to solve this equation. Any prior knowledge that allows an estimate of enough unknowns to reduce the system to be fully-determined may be utilized and the availability and type of such varies by application [0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of SHEIKH, because doing so would aid in the determining of adequate navigation accuracy, as recognized by SHEIKH.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of SHEIKH, and further in view of O’CONNOR.
Regarding claim 14, BROUMANDAN/ SHEIKH discloses the method of claim 13,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, O’CONNOR teaches that the RF transmitters 16 transmit the messages in order. Using synchronized clocks of the RF transmitters 16, the messages are transmitted from the different RF transmitters 16 with the same or similar timing. In LEO, multiple radio beams on each satellite (e.g., 3168 beams across 66 satellites) transmit messages. Bursts of radio signals containing PNT data are synchronized with each other on regular frames [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of O’CONNOR, because doing so would improve system reliability and accuracy of detection, as recognized by O’CONNOR.
Regarding claim 20, BROUMANDAN/ SHEIKH discloses the method of claim 19,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, O’CONNOR teaches that the RF transmitters 16 transmit the messages in order. Using synchronized clocks of the RF transmitters 16, the messages are transmitted from the different RF transmitters 16 with the same or similar timing. In LEO, multiple radio beams on each satellite (e.g., 3168 beams across 66 satellites) transmit messages. Bursts of radio signals containing PNT data are synchronized with each other on regular frames [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of O’CONNOR, because doing so would improve system reliability and accuracy of detection, as recognized by O’CONNOR.
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Fischer (US 2008/0088506 A1 “FISCHER”).
Regarding claim 15, BROUMANDAN/ SHEIKH discloses the method of claim 13,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FISCHER teaches data generated by acquisition and tracking circuitry in the GPS receiver 24 and/or Galileo receiver 35 [0069]. GPS and Galileo are independent navigation systems and therefore, each system uses its own navigation time reference [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of FISCHER, because doing so would improve service availability, system accuracy, and system robustness by using multiple measurements from multiple satellite sources, as recognized by FISCHER.
Regarding claim 21, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FISCHER teaches data generated by acquisition and tracking circuitry in the GPS receiver 24 and/or Galileo receiver 35 [0069]. GPS and Galileo are independent navigation systems and therefore, each system uses its own navigation time reference [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of FISCHER, because doing so would improve service availability, system accuracy, and system robustness by using multiple measurements from multiple satellite sources, as recognized by FISCHER.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of FISCHER, and further in view of O’CONNOR.
Regarding claim 16, BROUMANDAN/ SHEIKH discloses the method of claim 15,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, O’CONNOR teaches that the RF signal includes information about the location, velocity, and/or clock bias of the satellite. The RF signal may include code or phasing information to determine position or timing [0067]. Furthermore, O’CONNOR teaches that the receiver supporting both allows verification of GNSS position or time based on the position or time information from LEO. The validated and/or authenticated LEO position and/or time may be used to check the GNSS position or time [0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of O’CONNOR, because doing so would improve system reliability and accuracy of detection, as recognized by O’CONNOR.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of FISCHER, and further in view of Elgersma et al. (US 2022/0221588 A1 “ELGERSMA”).
Regarding claim 22, BROUMANDAN/ FISCHER discloses the method of claim 21,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ELGERSMA teaches that the processing system 106 is configured to compare the GNSS time signal from the GNSS receiver 102 with the chip-scale atomic clock time signal from the chip-scale atomic clock 104 in order to detect whether GNSS spoofing is occurring. In particular, the processing system 106 is configured to determine a difference between the GNSS time signal and the chip-scale atomic clock time signal and compare the difference between the GNSS time signal and the chip-scale atomic clock time signal to a time threshold [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of ELGERSMA, because doing so would aid in detection of spoofing and corruption by checking whether the timing resources are within their known performance, as recognized by ELGERSMA.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of FISCHER, and further in view of Balog et al. (US 2019/0302272 A1 “BALOG”).
Regarding claim 23, BROUMANDAN/ FISCHER discloses the method of claim 21,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BALOG teaches that the control system may derive a GNSS-based acceleration from a GNSS-based velocity. The control system may further determine an absolute value of the running mean acceleration difference between the odometer-based acceleration and the GNSS-based acceleration to detect GNSS spoofing. GNSS spoofing may be indicated when the running mean acceleration difference exceeds a predetermined threshold [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of BALOG, because doing so would improve spoofing and error detection in the navigation system, as recognized by BALOG.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Doty et al. (US 11,337,034 B1 “DOTY”).
Regarding claim 24, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DOTY teaches that the system includes an independent process 518 that only utilizes trusted sensors 506 and therefore is not impacted by any fault or erroneous data from the untrusted sensors 500. For example, an inertial reference system may provide a location measurement purely from IMUs 510 [col. 6, lines 22-24]. DOTY further teaches that trusted sensors 606 are such as barometers 608, IMUs 610, system clocks 612, wheel sensors 614 [col. 7, lines 34-35].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of DOTY, because doing so would improve spoofing and error detection in navigation, as recognized by DOTY.
Regarding claim 25, BROUMANDAN/ DOTY discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the local navigation measurements comprise at least one of inertial measurements or barometric pressure measurements (trusted sensors 606 are such as barometers 608, IMUs 610, system clocks 612, wheel sensors 614 [DOTY col. 7, lines 34-35], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 24).
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROUMANDAN, in view of Tuck et al. (US 2022/0221587 A1 “TUCK”).
Regarding claim 30, BROUMANDAN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TUCK relates to determining a boundary of a spoofing region identifying spoofed satellite signals. Specifically, TUCK teaches that FIG. 2B is a diagram of an overhead view of a portion of street system 250, illustrating how a spoofer may impact a vehicle travelling on a road system. The path of the vehicle is shown as it entered an area 260 with a spoofer transmitting a spoofed GNSS signal. The spoofed GNSS signal provides information indicating that the vehicle is actually in the spoofed false zone 270. Thus, as the vehicle entered the area covered by the spoofer, its GNSS receiver reported locations in the spoofed false zone [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of BROUMANDAN to include the teachings of TUCK, because doing so would enable the system to detect potential GNSS spoofing and develop maps identifying regions in which spoofing has been detected, thereby altering behavior of the GNSS receiver when it detects it is nearing a spoofing region, or that the output of the GNSS receiver may be ignored and alternate positioning technique may be used, as recognized by TUCK.
Regarding claim 31, BROUMANDAN/ TUCK discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the spoofable subspace is one of a line or a surface (FIG. 2B is a diagram of an overhead view of a portion of street system 250, illustrating how a spoofer may impact a vehicle travelling on a road system. The path of the vehicle is shown as it entered an area 260 with a spoofer transmitting a spoofed GNSS signal. The spoofed GNSS signal provides information indicating that the vehicle is actually in the spoofed false zone 270. Thus, as the vehicle entered the area covered by the spoofer, its GNSS receiver reported locations in the spoofed false zone [TUCK 0059], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 30). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from, for example, FIG. 2B that at least spoofed false zone 270 is a surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Achanta (US 2017/0227651 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of detecting manipulation of GNSS signals using a second time source. If two or more GNSS constellation signals are being detected, the phase error between the GNSS constellation signals may be monitored. When the phase error drifts, then manipulation is determined. The integrity of a GNSS constellation signal may be monitored using an internal time source such as a crystal oscillator by monitoring a slope of the free running counter at the detected rising edges of a pulse-per-second signal from the GNSS constellation.
Vanderwerf (US 2014/0074397 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of providing integrity for a hybrid navigation system using a Kalman filter. The method includes determining a main navigation solution for one or more of roll, pitch, platform heading, or true heading for the vehicle using signals from a plurality of GNSS satellites and inertial measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights